fisheryprogress.org · Web view2.3.3 Fishery improvement recommendation: There is a need to conduct...

Client: Gadre Marine Private Ltd. India has three processing plants in Ratnagiri (Maharashtra), Chorwad (Gujarat), and Brahmavar (Karnataka). Assessor Y0: Dr Pramod Ganapathiraju, IUU Risk Intelligence, CanadaAssessor Y1: Dr Katrina Nakamura, Sustainability Incubator, Honolulu USA

2018 Update:

The assessment scores were reviewed and updated with new findings in November 2018. Recommendations were developed for all gaps to passing scores.

Fishery Improvement Recommendations for 2018-2022

The following improvement recommendations will be advanced by the FIP 2018-2022.

1.1.1 Fishery improvement recommendation: A Winter ban and other short-term and long-term management measures within a 5-year time-frame can quickly rebound the stock to optimal stock exploitation levels.

1.2.1 Fishery improvement recommendation: A unified harvest strategy for the west coast is needed to rebound the stock to optimal stock exploitation levels.

1.2.2 Fishery improvement recommendation: Monitor catches at landing accurately and sufficiently to support the catch limits needed to achieve MSY.

2.1.1 Fishery improvement recommendation: A demonstrably effective strategy and evidence of recovery are needed.

2.1.2 Fishery improvement recommendation: Add a Winter ban to improve the effectiveness of the partial strategy for sustaining stocks.

2.2.2 Fishery improvement recommendation: Monitoring of discards is carried out by CMFRI, so the need for a management strategy could be identified if rates of incidental capture were to increase. Scientific data collection on discards at sea can be strengthened through pilot-scale programs to collect such data through logbooks at scheme as Indian trawlers are not designed to accommodate manned observer missions, as well as trash fish landings at minor fishing ports.

2.2.3 Fishery improvement recommendation: A monitoring programme could be developed that will allow the impact of the trawl fishery on ETP species to be determined.

2.3.1, 2.3.2 Fishery improvement recommendation: Establish appropriate management arrangements to discourage ETP species capture in the unit of certification area.

Threadfin Breams – India (West coast) Fishery Pre-Assessment

1

2.3.3 Fishery improvement recommendation: There is a need to conduct a workshop on identification of marine mammals for skippers in all major trawl fishing harbours so that they can release the animals with minimal harm or install By-catch Reduction Devices where necessary. Identification of migratory routes of marine mammals through interviews with vessel skippers can also provide information on critical transit routes of marine mammals, so that such spots can be avoided using GPS trackers on Trawl boats.

3.1.1 Fishery improvement recommendation: There is a need to conduct engagement with all relevant stakeholders (Fishing industry – processing plants, buyers, suppliers, etc.) trawl boat operators, trawler skippers, State Fisheries Departments, Fishing Associations, Fisheries Scientists, Local NGOs and scientific institutions to strengthen data collection and achieve management goals consistent with the objectives stated in MSC Principles 1 and 2.

3.1.3 Fishery improvement recommendation: Involvement of all stakeholders is key to achieving this objective. The stakeholders and State Fisheries Departments are ready to focus on organised poachers and trawl operators that are targeting juvenile fish decimating several commercial fish stocks along with threadfin bream stocks. State Fisheries Departments and Marine Police must be supported for enforcement of trawl mesh size, and preventing landings of juvenile fish; companies engaged in illegal procurement of juvenile fish must be prosecuted through courts to send a strong signal to this organised crime.

3.2.1 Fishery improvement recommendation: Encourage a coordinated response (port authorities, marine police, fisheries departments) to achieve the fishery’s objective of reducing overfishing on juveniles.

3.2.2 Fishery improvement recommendation: A voluntary ban on fishing in the spawning grounds during specific months in a year until the stock rebuilds to MSY levels (128,000 tonnes)

3.2.3 Fishery improvement recommendation: Encourage all west coast states to take up comparable measures and enforcement operations as Kerala and Goa to control fishing access

3.2.4 Fishery improvement recommendation: Inquire with CMFRI about the status of occasional external review of the fishery-specific management system

2017 Assessment:

The pre-assessment of Threadfin bream fishery (west coast of India) in this report is based on work conducted in two stages. In stage one, a comprehensive assessment of scientific literature and interviews with fishing boat owners provided content appropriate for the fishery until last year. In the second stage, consultation with scientists in respective states provided additional layers of information to adjust final scores. In total, 12 interviews were conducted in Kerala, Karnataka and Maharashtra.

2

Species: Nemipterus japonicus; Nemipterus mesoprion (Threadfin Breams)Geographical Area: West coast of India (in six coastal states from Gujarat to Kerala within the Exclusive Economic Zone of Mainland India)Depth of Exploitation: 0 to 150 metres depthStock: Arabian Sea; FAO Statistical Area 51Environment: Marine; demersalThreadfin Bream Landings (2015): 162,764 tonnes (whole Indian coastline)Threadfin breams landed by 6 coastal states on west coast (2015): 140,044 tonnesMethod of Capture: Trawl netsRanking among top 10 marine seafood landed in 2015: 7 (by quantity in tonnes)

Figure 1: Map showing

the location and extent of the unit of certification

Six species of threadfin breams are reported from Indian waters, Nemipterus japonicas (Japanese threadfin bream), N. mesoprion (Red-filament threadfin bream), N. delagoae (Delagoan thread-fin bream), N. metopias, N. nematophorus (Threadfin bream) and N. tolu (Notched threadfin-bream). Of the six species, the first two constitute the bulk of commercial landings in India (Murty et al., 2003). The threadfin bream fishery off the west coast of India exploits a single stock that straddles across multiple coastal states in the Arabian Sea for both species (Pawar et al., 2011; Ning et al., 2015; Sreekanth et al., 2015; Selvaraj et al., 2007). Nemipterus japonicus and Nemipterus mesoprion are the two-principal species that contribute up to 90% of the total exploited stock in these

MSC Principle 1: Conservation of Target Stocks

3

waters. Although several sub-stocks may exist within the west coast of India (Mudasir et al., 2016; Menezes et al., 2002; Adiga et al., 2016) the entire stock is treated as separate units under current fisheries management arrangements in India. Juveniles and sub-adults are dominant in the 10-50 metres zone while a higher concentration of adults was reported in offshore waters between 100-200 metres depth. Since the late 1990s, trawlers along west coast have extended operations to 150 metre depth line increasing catches ten-fold over the past two decades. Nevertheless, threadfin breams have exhibited resilience even in the face of unsustainable exploitation practices such as illegal trawling and capture of juvenile fish during spawning seasons.

In southwest India, bulk of the stock is caught during monsoon season when upwelling triggers movement of stock from offshore to coastal waters (Murty et al., 2003). A limited closed period is enforced by the Indian Government in all coastal states along the west coast of India. However, the impact of closure is minimal due to low mesh size of trawl and other fishing gears (gillnets) used to target threadfin breams during rest of the year. Further, since it is a straddling stock, exploitation practices in other coastal nations such as Pakistan and Iran could also have an impact on recruitment, fishing thresholds, MSY and other biological parameters (limit and target reference points). Threadfin bream stocks have a wide distribution range from 10-200m depth along the continental shelf of India. From 1950-1980s the stock managed to overcome overfishing because offshore stocks were largely left untouched as trawling was confined to the 50-m depth range. To compensate decline in landings from coastal waters’, in recent decades’ trawling has expanded towards offshore waters (150-m depth range) (James 2014; Adiga et al., 2016) leading to over-exploitation of the entire stock throughout its range. Supply declines have also caused shortages, forcing surimi processing plants to gradually import more raw material from other coastal states in India.

The biggest threat to Threadfin bream stocks is the non-compliance with cod-end mesh size in the trawl sector (leading to indiscriminate capture of juveniles at unsustainable levels), unstable expansion of fishmeal and fish-manure factories that have sprung up along the west coast of India which mainly rely on trawl by-catch (comprising of trash fish and juvenile fish) for raw materials. Governments in coastal states from Gujarat to Kerala need to curtail activities of trawlers that exclusively target juvenile fish for manure factories. A Government or third party audit of the extent of raw material sourcing practices of these factories (west coast of India) needs to be conducted to understand the extent of damage through these trawlers to juvenile threadfin breams and other commercial fish stocks. It is also necessary to evaluate the mesh size compliance of trawlers and gillnetters, as increasingly many trawlers are using smaller-meshed nets to indiscriminately capture juvenile fish in large quantities throughout the year (Pramod 2012). Some of the other threats identified include

4

dumping of industrial wastes, release of raw sewage and other effluents into nursery grounds in coastal waters, destruction of mangroves, land reclamation, and dumping of plastic waste into coastal bays.

Figure 2: showing a typical fishing trawler leaving port in south-west India

MSC Indicator 1.1.1 specifies that the stock be at a level that maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 70 guideposts as the stock appears to be fluctuating around the level of target reference point (Sathianandan et al., 2014; Xavier 2014). In India, most of the stock assessments have been undertaken on a state-by-state basis rather than treating whole stock as one unit off the west coast of India (Joshi 2005). Studies examining historical average catch rates during 1970-2002 in comparison with landings for the 2003-2005 years indicated that Nemipterus sp. were less abundant in Kerala, and abundant in Karnataka (Mohamed et al., 2010; Shyam et al., 2014; Adiga et al., 2016; Sreekanth et al., 2015b) alluding to overexploitation of the stock in some jurisdictions.

Initial stock assessments used estimates from six landing centers (Murty et al., 1992) suggested that the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) for Threadfin Breams along east coast of India was 5000 tonnes and west coast ranged between 43,000 to 46,000

5

tonnes. However, subsequent studies using data from bulk of commercial fisheries, exploratory and experimental fishery in the 20-200 depth zone revealed estimated potential yield to be around 128,000 tonnes for mainland India (Murty et al., 2003). Current exploitation trends suggest that the stock is over-exploited on both coasts. Catches have exceeded potential yields since 2008, with 162,764 tonnes landed in 2015 alone (See Figure 2. & Figure 3. below). In Kerala, potential yield of threadfin breams was estimated as 34,555 tonnes annually (Sathianandan et al., 2008) but landings have been above 42,000 tonnes each year. Similarly catches have exceeded MSY levels of 21,345 tonnes in Gujarat (Khileri et al., 2017).

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

Year

Land

ings

in t

onne

s

Figure 2: Threadfin Breams landings in India (2004-2015) in metric tonnes

Year Total Landings Year State LandingsState LandingsState LandingsState2004 118899 2013 Gujarat 50750 Dama & Diu 4095 Maharashtra 16151 Goa

Figure 3: Threadfin Breams landings (in tonnes) state-wise (2013-2015 years) Source: CMFRI

Although overfishing is occurring on this stock there is considerable scientific evidence suggesting that the stock can rebound quickly to productive levels if the fishing activity is reduced for a period of 3-5 years. The stock exhibits medium resilience to fishing pressure and minimum population doubling time is in the range of 1.4 - 4.4 years. So, both short-term and long-term management measures within a 5-year time-frame can quickly rebound the stock to optimal stock exploitation levels. The stock appears to be resilient to over-exploitation by multiday trawlers in Karnataka and Kerala, but catches appear to be declining in Maharashtra and Gujarat as fishing gradually expands to

6

offshore waters. Increasingly a large percentage of trawl catches are dominated by juvenile fish alluding to lower abundance of adult fish within existing populations. Maturity: Lm 14.0 range; Max. length: 32.0 cm TL male/unsexed; common length: 25.0 cm TL male/unsexed; max. reported age: 8 years (Fishbase).

1.1.1 2018 score: 60-79

1.1.1 Preliminary score for 2017: 70 range

Fishery improvement recommendation: Short-term and long-term management measures within a 5-year time-frame can quickly rebound the stock to optimal stock exploitation levels.

MSC Indicator 1.1.2 specifies that limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 70 guidepost. At present, annual landings are higher than potential yield for the stock. Reference points are calculated and published regularly by CMFRI and other academic research institutions. The analysis shows that, maximum sustainable yield (MSY) can be obtained at a fishing level of 1.4 whereas the maximum economic yield (MEY) can be obtained at a fishing level of 0.8 (Swatipriyanka et al 2014). There is insufficient evidence the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives however. Target and limit reference points have not been explicitly identified for the stock based on fish landing data collected from major fish landing centers along the entire west coast.

The stock is subjected to variable exploitation levels in different coastal states (See Figure 3). There is a need for CMFRI to integrate stock assessment data for all coastal states from Gujarat to Kerala before arriving at a correct MSY figure for the stock. See Murty et al., (1992); Murty et al., (2003); Gopal and Vivekanandan (1991); Chakraborty (2002); Zacharia and Nataraja (2003); Joshi (2005); Joshi (2010); Sen et al., (2014); Sreekanth et al., (2015b); Sreekanth et al., (2015); CMFRI (2016); Sreekanth et al., (2014); Devaraj and Gulati (1988); Raje (1996); Manojkumar (2007); Manojkumar (2004); Khileri et al., (2017).

Both limit and target reference points have been estimated for the stock through regular stock assessments in several coastal states from Gujarat to Kerala along the west coast of India. However, due to the open access nature of fisheries management in India; the

7

stock has been exploited at levels higher than the suggested MSY of 128,000 tonnes in some of the coastal states like Kerala, Gujarat and Karnataka. Moreover, stock assessments have not been reported for all coastal states for robust assessment of this indicator.

1.1.2 2018 score: 60-79

1.1.2 Preliminary score for 2017: 70

Fishery improvement recommendation: There is a need for sufficient evidence the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. Fundamentally, the need is to increase the age at capture and enforce cod-end mesh size of trawl nets through increase in mesh size and seizure of illegal gears at fishing ports; so that harvest rates drop to appropriate levels.

Swatipriyanka et al (2014) Stock Assessment of Japanese threadfin bream, Nemipterus japonicus (Bloch, 1791) from Veraval water; http://www.niscair.res.in/jinfo/ijms/ijms-forthcoming-articles/BKP-IJMS-PR-April%202014/MS%202011%20Edited.pdf

MSC indicator 1.2.1 specifies that the harvest strategy be expected to achieve stock management objectives reflected in target and limit reference points. The harvest strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument. Monitoring is in place to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery does not meet the 60 guidepost. The 61 day ban on fishing, longer ban in Kerala, and trawl gear changes in Maharashtra to square mesh are helping to reduce juvenile catches, but not expected to achieve MSY on the west coast.

Spatial restrictions apply to fishing trawlers in all coastal states along the west coast of India but there is limited enforcement of the regulations at sea. Temporal restrictions prohibit trawling during the monsoon season, but this is not effective as bulk of spawning for threadfin breams occurs outside the closure period. See Joshi (2005); Joshi (2010); Sen et al., (2014); Adiga et al., (2016); Manojkumar (2007); Khileri et al., (2017); Kizhakudan et al., (2008); Sathianandan et al., (2013) documents for more information.

8

According to scientists conducting stock assessments in India, threadfin breams are quite resilient to fishing pressure and good governance measures in applicable states can rebound the stock very quickly to MSY levels appropriate for this stock. Based on research data and information from State agencies (Fisheries Departments) monitoring this stock, the fishery therefore does not deserve to fail on this PI alone. The stock exhibits medium resilience to fishing pressure and minimum population doubling time is in the range of 1.4 - 4.4 years.

1.2.1 2018 score: <60

1.2.1 Preliminary score for 2016: <60

Fishery improvement recommendation: A unified harvest strategy for the west coast is needed to rebound the stock to optimal stock exploitation levels.

MSC indicator 1.2.2 requires that there are well-defined and effective harvest control rules in place.

Sufficient data are available to understand stock structure, productivity and composition but fishery removals are not monitored regularly at a level of accuracy sufficient to achieve a harvest strategy based on MSY and MEY. There is not yet an indicator available and monitored to support the control of harvests and the 60 guidepost is not met.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 50 guidepost due to following reasons stated below. Due to open access nature of fisheries management in India there are few ways to reduce exploitation rate as limit reference points are approached. Limitations on control of access to fishing grounds is only confined to single annual closed season for a period of 61 days (June 1 to July 31, 2017) during monsoon season (DAHD 2017; Anon 2010) on the west coast (Arabian Sea). Marine Fishing Regulation Acts (MFRA) in each coastal state also specify gear and time restrictions for exploiting fish stocks but most state agencies (Marine Police and state Fisheries Departments) fail to effectively exercise the rule of law. Even in cases where illegal fishing gears are noticed during inspections at docks, very few cases are successfully prosecuted through courts, or penalised adequately as gear seizures are rarely documented due to lobbying from boat owners (Pramod 2010; Pramod 2012). See Adiga et al., (2016a); Adiga et al., (2016b); Anon (2010); Aswathy et al., (2016); CMFRI (2016); Deshmukh (2013); Lazarus et al., (2016); Rao (2010); Vivekanandan et al., (2009).

9

There is a clear need to develop harvest control rules and tools for the management of fishery to achieve MSC standards. The Indian Fisheries Act, Marine Fisheries Regulations in each coastal state and Annual Fishing Ban need to be enforced vigorously to prevent landings of juvenile fish. Frequency of combined operations by Marine Police and Fisheries Departments need to be increased to enforce gear/area restrictions and prevent deliberate targeting of spawning aggregations at sea. There is a need for implementation of cod-end mesh size regulations in trawl and gillnet fisheries in coastal waters. There is also a need for more market based interventions from surimi processing plants & Fishmeal plants to stop procurement of fish below a certain size limit (14 cm) and prohibition on buying of fish during spawning seasons.

Spawning period for Nermipterus japonicus lasts from December to March, while Nemipterus mesoprion spawning period is January to June, with peak spawning in October to November each year along the west coast. This illustrates that the annual closed season along the west coast does not coincide with the spawning season of threadfin breams resulting in over-exploitation of spawning stocks during the breeding season.

1.2.2 2018 Score: <60


Fishery improvement recommendation: Monitor catches at landing accurately and sufficiently to support the catch limits needed to achieve MSY.

MSC Indicator 1.2.3 requires that the information needed for the harvest strategy is being collected.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 85 guidepost as relevant information is available related to stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition and other data available to support the harvest strategy. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule one or more indicators available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rules. There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. All stock removals in the trawl sector are documented through data enumerators at fishing harbours and frame surveys are used to collect similar data for small-scale fisheries. Both CMFRI and State fisheries departments are involved in data collection and stock assessments of relevant stocks exploited in their jurisdictions. See

10

Joshi (2005); Manojkumar (2007); Joshi (2010); Sen et al., (2014); Khileri et al., (2017) documents for more information.


Fishery improvement recommendation: More robust stock assessments can be conducted if stock removals through discards at sea and percentage of juvenile threadfin breams landed by Mini-trawlers and Otter trawlers targeting trash fish are properly accounted. See Pramod (2012); Pramod (2010) reports for more information.

MSC Indicator 1.2.4 requires there to be adequate assessment of the fish stocks.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 85 guidepost as the stock assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the harvest control rules. The stock assessment of threadfin breams in each state evaluate stock status relative to reference points. Stock assessments take account of uncertainty and is reviewed through peer-review and published in both academic and Government reports. See Joshi (2005); Manojkumar (2007); Joshi (2010); Sen et al., (2014); Sreekanth et al., (2015b) reports for more information.


Fishery improvement recommendation: Substantial amount of data is collected on landings of threadfin breams and other fish caught in the trawl fishery. Landings are monitored at all small ports along the coast in the unit of certification. The amount of information gathered is sufficient to enable stock productivity to be estimated and reference points to be calculated (MSY, Exploitation rate, etc.). Currently, most of the stock assessments among various coastal states are conducted on a stand-alone basis. It is recommended that stock assessments by CMFRI should cover the whole west coast and include uncertainty associated with illegal and unreported catches of juvenile threadfin breams unassessed through discards and trash fish landings to provide a much more accurate estimate of potential yield for this stock.

MSC Principle 2: Maintenance of Ecosystem Integrity

11

MSC Indicator 2.1.1 requires that the fishery not pose serious harm to species retained by the fishery nor, where applicable, hinder recovery of depleted retained species.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 60 guidepost. The main retained species are likely to be within biologically based limits. If outside the limits, there is a partial strategy in place designed to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species. There are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery.

The dynamics of multi-gear and multi-species trawl fishery are hard to unfold especially in terms of ecosystem impacts as the types of fishing gears varies in each coastal state from Gujarat to Kerala and beyond. However, bulk of the catches are still landed by trawlers in all coastal states along the west coast of India. See Bhagirathan et al., (2014); Abdurahiman et al., (2010); Adiga et al., (2016); CMFRI (2016); Dineshbabu et al., (2010); Dineshbabu et al., (2013); Dineshbabu et al., (2016); Mohamed and Veena (2016); Mohamed et al., (2013); Mohamed et al., (2010); Mohanraj et al., (2009); Najmudeen and Sathiadas (2008); Rao (2010) reports for more information.

There is a high degree of certainty that retained species are within biologically based limits, and rates of capture are negligible. None of the targeted species and by-catch reported in the trawl fishery off west coast have been depleted to unsustainable levels. Partial measures are in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

2.1.1 2018 Score: 60-79


Fishery improvement recommendation: A demonstrably effective strategy and evidence of recovery are needed.

MSC Indicator 2.1.2 requires that the fishery must avoid harm to fish populations by managing the retained species to remain at levels within biological limits.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 65 guidepost. Measures are in place that are expected to maintain the main retained species at levels which are highly likely to be within biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery

12

and rebuilding. Also, such measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). Monitoring of landings is carried out, so the need for a management strategy would be identified if rates of incidental capture were to increase. See sources cited in MSC Indicator 2.1.1 for more information.

The stock is fecund but the current partial strategy to sustain stocks lacks confidence. There are no management measures in place to reduce the incidence of capture of non-target species, and based on the information presented during interviews limited intervention through enforcement at ports seems to be necessary to optimise harvest rates in this fishery.

2.1.2 2018 Score: 60-79


Fishery improvement recommendation: Add a Winter ban to improve the effectiveness of the partial strategy for sustaining stocks.

MSC Indicator 2.1.3 requires that sufficient information is collected to help the fishery to understand its impacts on retained species and the effectiveness of its management strategy for species kept by the fishery after capture.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 80 guidepost as there is adequate quantitative information on retained species that are landed at fishing harbours located in all coastal states along the west cost of India. There is no formal strategy in place to manage the retention of non-target species; however, landings are monitored, providing a record of their incidence of capture, enabling any increases in risk level and mortality to be detected. However, there is shortage of information to confirm that the catch of non-target species in the fishery is very low. The SG60 requirements are met, but in the absence of quantitative information the SG80 and SG100 requirements are not met. Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available to describe the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. Information is adequate to support partial strategy to manage main retained species. Sufficient data will continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). See sources cited in MSC Indicator 2.1.1 for more information.

13

A monitoring program could be implemented to determine the amount of non-target species that are retained in the fishery. Quantitative information should be gathered to determine the amount of non-target species that are retained in the fishery.

2.1.3 2018 score: 80

2.1.3 Preliminary 2016 score: 80

MSC Indicator 2.2.1 requires that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch species, and where a species caught in the fishery bycatch is already depleted, that it does not hinder its recovery.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 80 guidepost. See Bhairol et al., (2013); Xavier (2014); Salim et al., (2014); Rajoolshanis et al., (2014); Zacharia et al., (2006); Mahesh et al., (2014); Kamei et al., (2013) reports for more information. Existing data from research suggests that the main bycatch species are highly likely to be within biologically based limits. If outside such limits, a partial strategy of demonstrably effective mitigation measures is in place such that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. As noted in 2.1.1 above, discard rates are on a decrease due to demand for trash fish in the fish meal industry. Scientific institutions can collect enough data on both target and non-target species landed at ports. See sources cited in MSC Indicator 2.1.1 for more information.

There is very little discarding of non-target species in this fishery; they are not Threatened, endangered and protected species, and the risk to these species is therefore very low. Scientific data collection on discards at sea can be strengthened through pilot-scale programs to collect such data through logbook scheme as Indian trawlers are not designed to accommodate manned observer missions.

2.2.1 2018 score: 80


14

MSC Indicator 2.2.2 requires that there is a strategy in place for managing bycatch species to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 60 guidepost. As noted in PIs 2.1.1 and 2.2.1, all catches are landed at fishing ports and there are minimal discards in this fishery. Interviews with trawler skippers suggested that non-target species that are caught in the fishery are captured in small numbers and are widely distributed and abundant; it is highly unlikely that incidental capture in the certified fishery poses any threat at all to populations of the species concerned. See sources cited in MSC Indicator 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 above for more information.

Monitoring of discards is carried out by CMFRI, so the need for a management strategy could be identified if rates of incidental capture were to increase.

2.2.2 2018 Score: 60-79


Fishery improvement recommendation: Scientific data collection on discards at sea can be strengthened through pilot-scale programs to collect such data through logbooks at scheme as Indian trawlers are not designed to accommodate manned observer missions.

MSC Indicator 2.2.3 requires that information is available on the nature and amount of bycatch. The information must be adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 65 guidepost as quantitative information should be gathered to determine the impact of the fishery on ETP species within the Unit of Certification area. in the absence of a system of data collection that is integrated with a strategy to manage discarding. Therefore, a lower score has been awarded in response to management deficiencies, rather than any real problem with the fishery itself. If the fishery is certified, a condition will be required to meet the administrative requirements of the MSC standard to ensure that this information is gathered and linked to an appropriate management strategy.

15

Trawl nets are also reported for mortalities of sea turtles along the west coast of India. There is adequate qualitative information and some quantitative information on the amount of main bycatch species affected by the trawl fishery. The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, amended in 1993 prohibits capture of marine mammals and sea turtles. Trawl skippers reported entanglement of Hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) and Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) turtles few times each year mostly in coastal waters. Information is sufficient to estimate outcome status with respect to biologically based limits. No entanglement or interactions have been reported during interviews with other large marine mammals like whales or dolphins. Occasionally whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) were reported but fishermen often released them without harm as there is no market for such species on the west coast of India. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main bycatch species. Sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk to main bycatch species (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy). See Bhairol et al., (2013); Aswathy et al., 2012; Dineshababu and Radhakrishnan 2009; Kurup et al., 2003; Dineshbabu et al., 2010). There is a need to collect quantitative and qualitative data on a regular basis at least 4-5 times a year in the trawl fishery by deploying onboard observers for short duration trips, using logbooks for multi-day trips and through interviews with skippers to determine the risk posed by the fishery. See sources cited in MSC Indicator 2.1.1 and 2.2.1 above for more information.

Qualitative and quantitative information is available on the amount of discarding in the fishery, and this information is sufficient to determine that discarding of non-target species is negligible in the trawl net fishery, and therefore, poses little or no threat to discarded species. There is a need to strengthen appropriate information gathering arrangements for non-target species in the unit of certification area.

Available information suggests that the fishery has limited impact on all ETP species along the west coast of India. However, this information is arbitrary, qualitative and the impacts have not been quantified. The SG60 requirements are therefore met, but not the SG80 requirements.

2.2.3 2018 score: 60-79


Fishery improvement recommendation: A monitoring programme could be developed

16

that will allow the impact of the trawl fishery on ETP species to be determined.

MSC Indicator 2.3.1 requires that the fishery meets national and international requirements for protection of endangered, threatened and protected species (called ETP species in the MSC program). It must be shown that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of any ETP species that are depleted.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 70 guidepost. Any reported effects of the fishery on ETP species are likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species, and are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts to ETP species. ETP species are not found in recent reporting of species in the catch. Although the level of risk posed by this fishery to ETP species is likely to be low, there is no system in place to regularly quantify the frequency or magnitude of ETP capture in trawl nets (and this is acknowledged as a shortcoming by fishery managers). See Bhagirathan et al., (2014); Anon (2010); Kumarran (2012); Premjothi et al., (2016); Rajan (2014); Sutaria et al., (2015); Vivekandan and Jeyabaskaran (2012); Vivekanandan et al., (2010); Yousuf et al., (2009) reports for more information.

Trawl catch composition on the west coast of India (Ap 2013)

17

2.3.1 2018 score: 60-79


Fishery improvement recommendation: Establish appropriate management arrangements to discourage ETP species capture in the unit of certification area.

Ap D (2013) The trawl fishery of the Eastern Arabian Sea; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262915912_The_trawl_fishery_of_the_Eastern_Arabian_Sea

MSC Indicator 2.3.2 requires that the fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: (1) meet national and international requirements, (2) ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to endangered, threatened or

18

protected (ETP) species, (3) ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species, and (4) minimize mortality of, or injuries to, ETP species.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 65 guidepost. Limited voluntary measures are in place that minimize mortality and injury, and are generally expected to achieve the ETP Outcome PI 80 level of performance or above. The measures must be considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g. general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species in Indian waters). The ETP species that are at risk from the impacts of the fishery are protected by statutory measures (Wildlife Protection Act). There are no input or output controls in this fishery. Threadfin breams and other major commercial fish stocks exploited by trawlers are not managed through quotas (TAC) or other harvest control rules. Although, most of the trawlers operating from Gujarat to Kerala have licences, there is no cap limiting the number of vessels operating along the west coast of India. Further, there is no limit on amount of catch that can be landed or Minimum Landing Size for threadfin breams landed by trawlers.

Some temporal controls like restrictions on fishing in artisanal inshore zone, ban on fishing at night, prohibition on fishing during annual close period apply to the trawl fleet. Many of the Marine Fisheries Regulation Acts (MFRA) also impose mesh-size restriction of 35 mm for the trawl fleet, but compliance remains abysmally low for most of the fleet (Pramod 2010). See sources cited in MSC Indicator 2.3.1 above for more information.

Fishery enforcement officers are empowered to enforce transgressions of the law, although enforcement action is not highly documented. Although the interaction between the fishery and ETP species is very limited (under the scoring for 2.3.1), and no evidence suggests the fishery is hindering the recovery of ETP species, an ETP strategy is a mandatory rather than a conditional MSC requirement.

2.3.2 2018 score: 60-79


Fishery improvement recommendation: Establish appropriate management arrangements to discourage ETP species capture in the unit of certification area.

MSC Indicator 2.3.3 requires that relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including (1) information for the

19

development of the management strategy, (2) information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy, and (3) information to determine the outcome status of ETP species.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 65 guidepost. Information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery on ETP species, that information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species, and information is sufficient to qualitatively estimate fishery – related mortality of ETP species. Although there is adequate information on interactions of trawl fishing gear and driftnets with marine sea turtles and other marine mammals, such interactions with ETP species are not monitored routinely by either Federal or state Governments along the west coast of India. Hence, studies of fishery impact on marine mammals is based on reports of dead animals (Carcass) washed along the shoreline, and self-reporting my fishers on entanglements with large marine mammals esp., when gear damage is reported. See Yousuf et al., (2009); Vivekanandan et al., (2010); Vivekanandan and Jeyabaskaran (2012) reports for more information. See sources cited in MSC Indicator 2.3.1 above for more information.

The Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, amended in 1993 prohibits capture of many threatened species like turtles and all species of cetaceans (s11 of the Act and Schedules I & II). But there is very poor data collection on interactions of threatened species with trawl fishing gear. There is a need to initiate logbooks for the trawlers to collect data on any interactions with marine mammals in all coastal states off the west coast of India.

2.3.3 2018 score: 60-79


Fishery improvement recommendation: There is a need to conduct a workshop on identification of marine mammals for skippers in all major trawl fishing harbours so that they can release the animals with minimal harm or install By-catch Reduction Devices where necessary. Identification of migratory routes of marine mammals through interviews with vessel skippers can also provide information on critical transit routes of marine mammals, so that such spots can be avoided using GPS trackers on Trawl boats.

20

MSC Indicator 2.4.1 requires that the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function, in relation to ecosystem services.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 80 guidepost. There is a basic understanding of the types and distribution of the main habitats in the area of the fishery. Information is adequate to broadly understand the nature of the main impacts, including spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear. A concern is the lack of systematic studies on habitat in the fishery. While it is acknowledged that sensitive habitats (e.g. coral and sea mounts) are not in the area and that sandy bottom is the predominant habitat type, there is a need to correlate published literature with fishing grounds in the trawl fishery within the certification area. This PI should score SG 80 but may not score SG 100. A condition may be needed which requires the client to provide a survey of habitat types and their vulnerability in the fishery (This data is available from both Boat owners and Fishery Survey of India). As existing information suggests that the that the fishery is unlikely to reduce habitat structure & function to point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Scientists and trawler skippers have reported that most of the trawling is conducted on sandy and muddy bottoms and fishing locations tend to differ during different seasons of the year, so the habitats are likely to recover from impacts of trawling. Trawling on sandy and muddy bottoms is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to the point of serious or irreversible harm. Therefore, it is possible that this PI could score 80. Should there be evidence (such as spatial analysis of fishing location vs sensitive habitat) available that indicates fishery is not occurring in sensitive habitats; hence the fishery may score 80 in a full certification assessment. See Bhagirathan et al., (2014); Dineshbabu (2013); Dineshbabu et al., (2012); Dineshbabu et al., (2016); Jaleel et al., (2015); James (2014); Kumar and Deepthi (2006); Mohamed and Veena (2016); Mohamed et al., (2013); Mohamed et al., (2008); Abdurrahman et al., (2010); Vivekandan et al., (2003); Vivekandan et al., (2005) reports for more information.

At present trawling is confined to specific depth and time restrictions apply along many sections of the coast. Extensive use of closed areas along with the requirement to use fishing location data (GPS and Cameras) from trawlers can aid in the strategy, which is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully.

2.4.1 2018 score: 80+


21

MSC Indicator 2.4.2 requires there to be a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 80 guidepost. There is scientific evidence to show the relationship between the fishery and its supporting habitat over many decades, which indicates that both the fishery and fishing method are compatible with the habitat. There is a partial strategy in place that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above. The partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or habitats involved. Trawling on sandy and muddy bottoms is highly unlikely to reduce habitat structure and function to the point of serious or irreversible harm. Therefore, it is possible that this PI could score 80. Should there be evidence (such as spatial analysis of fishing location vs sensitive habitat) available that indicates fishery is not occurring in sensitive habitats; hence the fishery may score 80 in a full certification assessment. See Bhagirathan et al., (2014); Dineshbabu (2013); Dineshbabu et al., (2012); Dineshbabu et al., (2016); Jaleel et al., (2015); James (2014); Kumar and Deepthi (2006); Mohamed and Veena (2016); Mohamed et al., (2013); Mohamed et al., (2008); Abdurrahman et al., (2010); Vivekandan et al., (2003); Vivekandan et al., (2005) reports for more information.

The key habitat features (Sandy and Muddy bottoms) supporting the benthic ecosystem off the Indian coast is the annual upwelling driven by the monsoon, which is well studied and unaffected by the trawl gear fishery. There are no management measures in place to reduce the impact of the fishery on its supporting habitat, and based on the information presented during interviews no such measures seem to be necessary. This observation justifies a pass score of "80" for this PI.

2.4.2 2018 score: 80+


MSC Indicator 2.4.3 requires that information be available that is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 80 guidepost. The nature, distribution and vulnerability of all main habitat types in the fishery area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery. Sufficient data is available to allow the

22

nature of the impacts of the fishery on habitat types to be identified and there is reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Sufficient data must be continued to be collected to detect any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). See Mohanty (2013); Bhagirathan et al., (2014); Dineshbabu (2013); Dineshbabu et al., (2012); Dineshbabu et al., (2016); Jaleel et al., (2015); James (2014); Kumar and Deepthi (2006); Mohamed and Veena (2016); Mohamed et al., (2013); Mohamed et al., (2008); Abdurrahman et al., (2010); Vivekandan et al., (2003); Vivekandan et al., (2005) reports for more information.

The fishery has very little impact on the physical or biotic elements of the habitat. The supporting habitat is well studied, and sufficient data exist to allow the relationship between the habitat and the fishery to be identified. The nature and distribution of key habitat features (upwelling areas) are well known and data are collected to allow changes to the habitat to be monitored over time.

2.4.3 2018 score: 80+


MSC Indicator 2.5.1 requires that the fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 80 guidepost. The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. See Mohanty (2013); Bhagirathan et al., (2014); Dineshbabu (2013); Dineshbabu et al., (2012); Dineshbabu et al., (2016); Jaleel et al., (2015); James (2014); Kumar and Deepthi (2006); Mohamed and Veena (2016); Mohamed et al., (2013); Mohamed et al., (2008); Abdurrahman et al., (2010); Vivekandan et al., (2003); Vivekandan et al., (2005); Abdurahiman et al., (2010) reports for more information. See sources cited in MSC Indicator 2.4.3 above for more information.

The fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function, and there is evidence to support this (see 2.4.1 above). The studies also demonstrate that data exist that would enable evidence of the ecosystem effects to be presented for this fishery.

23

2.5.1 2018 score: 80+


MSC Indicator 2.5.2 requires that there are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 80 guidepost. There is a partial strategy in place that considers available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance. The partial strategy is likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., research studies, comparison with similar fisheries/ ecosystems along the Indian coasts). See sources cited in MSC Indicator 2.4.3 and 2.5.1 above for more information.

Although the interaction between the fishery and its supporting ecosystems are very limited (under the scoring for 2.4.1), the shortcomings in the management strategy cannot be justified in this assessment because the indicators create a mandatory rather than a conditional requirement for effective management action. Action to correct this would therefore be a condition or pre-condition of certification.

2.5.2 2018 score: 80+


MSC Indicator 2.5.3 requires that there is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 80 guidepost as there is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. There is adequate information available that is adequate to broadly understand key elements of ecosystem, that the main impacts of fishery on these key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, but may not have been investigated in detail, and that the main functions of components (target, bycatch, retained, ETP, habitats) in the ecosystem are known. There is sufficient information available on impacts of fishery on these components to

24

allow some of main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred, and sufficient data continue to be collected to detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the measures). See Jaleel et al., (2015); Dineshbabu (2013); Dineshbabu et al., (2016); Kumar and Deepthi (2006); Bhagirathan et al., (2014); Vivekanandan et al., (2003); Vivekanandan et al., (2005); Zacharia et al., (2006); Yousuf et al., (2009); Mohanty (2013) reports for more information. See sources cited in MSC Indicators 2.4.2, 2.4.3 and 2.5.1 above for more information.

Data is collected on landings of all commercial fish species, discards and by-catch species associated with this fishery. Existing data are adequate to support ecosystem studies that could be the basis of future management strategies. This has also been demonstrated in a study of marine trophic indices throughout India.

2.5.3 2018 score: 80+


MSC Indicator 3.1.1 requires that the fishery is managed with an appropriate and effective legal and customary framework for governance.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 60 guidepost. Few legal restrictions apply to the fishing activity of the vessels within the unit of certification. The management system in India is generally consistent with local, national or international laws or standards that are aimed at achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system. Management system generally recognizes and respects the legal rights created explicitly or by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. A score of more than 60 has been awarded despite the absence of management controls that would deliver MSC Principles 1 & 2. The score is justified by the existence of legal and customary avenues by which the management controls could be realised, and by the Outcome scores awarded under Principles 1 & 2. The shortcomings identified here could be swiftly addressed through

MSC Principle 3: Management Institutions

25

the introduction of either statutory and customary management measures. See Adiga et al., (2016a,b); Anon (2017a,b); Anon (2010); DAHD (2016); DAHD (2017); Karnad et al., (2014); Mohamed and Veena (2016); Mohamed et al., (2013); Mohanty (2013); Polara et al., (2014); Rajasenan and Paul (2012) reports for more information.

3.1.1 2018 score: 60-79


Fishery improvement recommendation: There is a need to conduct engagement with all relevant stakeholders (Fishing industry – processing plants, buyers, suppliers, etc.) trawl boat operators, trawler skippers, State Fisheries Departments, Fishing Associations, Fisheries Scientists, Local NGOs and scientific institutions to strengthen data collection and achieve management goals consistent with the objectives stated in MSC Principles 1 and 2.

MSC indicator 3.1.2 requires that the management system offer effective consultation processes that are open to fishery stakeholders and to other interested and affected parties. The management roles and responsibilities must be clear and easily understood.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 80 guidepost. There are several organisations involved in fisheries management, and their roles and responsibilities are well established, respected and understood. Management decisions that are taken by the State Government are preceded by detailed investigations carried out by Committees established by the Government (e.g. Trawl Ban). These Committees are composed of industry representatives, and seek the views of stakeholders before making recommendations to Government. These Committees are established on an ad-hoc rather than on a routine footing, so while they offer an excellent opportunity for stakeholder engagement, the opportunity only arises infrequently. See sources cited in MSC Indicators 3.1.1 above for more information.

Coast-wide, the fishery will benefit from establishing a clear set of management roles and responsibilities supported by appropriate measures for all stakeholders (Fishing boat owners, Trawler skippers, Government Agencies, Scientific Institutions, etc.) to secure compliance with applicable Central Fisheries and Wildlife Protections Acts and State Marine Fisheries Regulations and related Acts. Key organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. The management system

26

includes consultation processes that regularly seek and receive relevant information from all relevant stakeholders. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The consultation process provides opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved.

3.1.2 2018 score: 80+


MSC Indicator 3.1.3 requires that there be long-term objectives for the fishery that reflect a precautionary approach and are consistent with the MSC principles and criteria.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 60 guidepost. Although long-term objectives are in place to guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, precautionary approach is largely implicit within federal and state management policy, its implementation remains patchy at best, with some states like Kerala, and Goa taking key decisions to regulate and better enforce management measures. See sources cited in MSC Indicators 3.1.1 above for more information.

During this pre-assessment, interviews with boat owners and trawler skippers suggested that they are open to new conservation measures as that will result in improved profitability for each trip. The logic specifies that medium and large-sized fish would yield better prices at ports than smaller-sized juveniles that often end up being illegally targeted for fish meal and manure factories.

3.1.3 2018 score: 60-79


Fishery improvement recommendation: Involvement of all stakeholders is key to achieving this objective. The stakeholders and State Fisheries Departments are ready to focus on organised poachers and trawl operators that are targeting juvenile fish decimating several commercial fish stocks along with threadfin bream stocks.

MSC Indicator 3.1.4 requires that the fishery provide incentives for sustainable fishing, and specifically that it does not subsidize unsustainable fishing.

27

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 70 guidepost. Trawl operators are given fuel subsidy and banks also offer loans for building new vessels. Current incentives are not consistent with achieving MSC Principles 1 and 2. The score awarded here is below the 'pass' score of 80, because although there is a management system that could deliver incentives, it currently fails to do so because there is poor implementation of laws and enforcement falls short at sea and landing ports. If the existing systems were strengthened (for instance by strengthening State enforcement wing at fishing harbours in various coastal states, restrictions on accessing sea through fishing ports, time restrictions per trip and VMS tracking), this score could be improved considerably. See sources cited in MSC Indicators 3.1.1 above for more information.

3.1.4 2018 score: 3.1.4 is no longer in the standard


Fishery improvement recommendation: State Fisheries Departments and Marine Police must be supported for enforcement of trawl mesh size, and preventing landings of juvenile fish; companies engaged in illegal procurement of juvenile fish must be prosecuted through courts to send a strong signal to this organised crime.

MSC Indicator 3.2.1 requires that the fishery have clear and specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes of MSC Principles 1 and 2.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 70 guidepost. Objectives are implicit in the fishery management plan and broadly consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Explicit but limited measures are in place through annual fishing ban (61 days), time and depth restrictions for trawlers as well as ban on landing smaller-sized fish. CMFRI monitors the status of stocks and provides an annual report of stock status relative to reference points. However, the present management system does not accurately respond to this information. Due to significant deficiencies in the management system (Fisheries Departments, Port authorities, Marine Police). See sources cited in MSC Indicators 3.1.1 above for more information.

3.2.1 2018 score: 60-79


28

Fishery improvement recommendation: Encourage a coordinated response (port authorities, marine police, fisheries departments) to achieve the fishery’s objective of reducing overfishing on juveniles.

MSC Indicator 3.2.2 requires that the fishery have effective ways for decisions to be made that result in fishing measures and strategies to meet the objectives.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 60 guidepost. There are informal decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of decisions. Although the management system has all the necessary institutions required to deliver effective management, at present the scientific data on stock health is not used to manage the stock in a sustainable manner due to open access nature of the trawl fishery. See Rajasenan and Paul (2012); Aswathy et al., (2016) reports for more information. See sources cited in MSC Indicators 3.1.1 above for more information.

Overcapacity should be controlled through ban on any further boat building, voluntary ban on fishing in the spawning grounds during specific months in a year until the stock rebuilds to MSY levels (128,000 tonnes) and enforcement of cod-end mesh size in trawlers.

3.2.2 2018 score: 60-79


Fishery improvement recommendation: A voluntary ban on fishing in the spawning grounds during specific months in a year until the stock rebuilds to MSY levels (128,000 tonnes)

MSC Indicator 3.2.3 requires that monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure there is compliance with the fishery’s management measures and also enforcement with the measures.

29

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 60 guidepost. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied. Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of fishery. Shortage of inspections and staff are reported in several states (Anon 2017a); Anon (2017b) leading to poor compliance. See Rajasenan and Paul (2012); Anon (2016); Karnad et al., (2014); Pramod (2010); Pramod (2012); Greenpeace (2012) reports for more information.

There is a need to tackle deliberate targeting of juvenile fish for supply to private fertilizer companies in Kerala (Anon 2017a). There is also a need to collect more data on enforcement measures undertaken by Fisheries Departments and coast Guard to control illegal fishing activities on a state by state basis from Gujarat to Kerala. Several states have controlled entry of trawlers from neighbouring states and constituted enforcement wing to arrest illegal trawlers during the annual fishing ban and seize juvenile fish at ports (e.g. Kerala and Goa). These measures and enforcement operations need to be extended to other coastal states along the west coast of India.

3.2.3 2018 score: 60-79


Fishery improvement recommendation: Encourage all west coast states to take up comparable measures and enforcement operations as Kerala and Goa to control fishing access

MSC Indicator 3.2.4 requires that the fishery has mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system and regular internal and occasional external review.

The fishery meets the 70 guidepost.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 75 guidepost. Scientific research is undertaken by CMFRI, as required, to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Research results are available to interested parties. A pass score of 80 is awarded here because there is evidence that monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist and are complied with, irrespective of the shortcomings in the

30

management system highlighted in 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 above. A score slightly below the 'pass' score of 80 is justified here because of the lack of a research plan that provides reliable and timely information sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with Principles 1 & 2. The main shortcoming here is the poor linkage between the research that is already carried out and the effective implementation of the management measures. If this linkage was addressed, the score would improve considerably. See sources cited in MSC Indicators 3.1.1 and 3.2.3 above for more information.

Decision making processes should be established and strengthened for the unit of certification, and linked to appropriate, enforceable, harvest control rules for the trawl sector. Harvest control rules (Restrictions on fishing by depth, trawl cod-end mesh size, prohibition on capture and landing of juvenile fish, ban on night time fishing, Implementation of annual fishing ban for 61 days) should be allied to reference points for the stock, through an appropriate harvest strategy supported by a clear decision making process involving all stakeholders.

3.2.4 2018 score: 60-79


Fishery improvement recommendation: Inquire with CMFRI about the status of occasional external review of the fishery-specific management system

MSC Indicator 3.2.5 requires that there be an evaluation of the fishery’s management on a regular periodic basis to see if it is meeting its objectives.

The Indian Threadfin bream fishery meets the 70 guidepost as the fishery has mechanisms to regularly evaluate some parts of the management system, and is subject to internal review on occasion by DAHD and CMFRI on a state by state basis from Gujarat to Kerala as well as review of management practices through Government Committees on the Trawl fishing sector. The MFRAs and annual fishing ban for a period of 61 days (DAHD 2017; DAHD 2016) on the west coast are meant to address declining stocks and their effectiveness is reviewed periodically using Government committees (DAHD and Planning Commission). There is poor implementation of Marine Fisheries Regulations by all coastal states along the west coast of India (Rajasenan and Paul 2012). None of the states implement cod-end mesh size requirements for trawl nets; trawlers often fish illegally in areas allocated for artisanal fishers; sale and transport of juvenile fish is undertaken openly to fishmeal plants without any repercussions. Landing

31

and sale of threatened and protected species like sharks caught as by-catch in this fishery is openly seen in many fishing harbours. Some States like Kerala now have Fisheries enforcement wing to monitor transgressions of Marine Fisheries Regulations at sea, but very little action is taken once infringements are identified at harbours and before transport to processing plants. A score below the 'pass' score of 80 but above the 'fail' score of 60 has been awarded here because the assessment team found that all the institutions (Fisheries Departments, Coast Guard, Marine Police, Courts) were in place to manage the fishery effectively and evaluate the performance of the management regime. All that is lacking are effective enforcement of these measures that would link science to management, and create a system for reviewing the effectiveness of the regime. If these administrative measures were put in place, the score would improve considerably. See sources cited in MSC Indicators 3.1.1 and 3.2.3 above for more information.


Fishery improvement recommendation: DAHD, CMFRI and State Fisheries Departments are engaged in evaluation of fisheries management on a regular basis for all multi-species fisheries. Although, measures are not undertaken on a single species or stock basis due to multi-gear nature of the trawl fisheries, annual fishing ban (61days), gear and area restrictions, allocation of inshore waters for motorised fishers, and diverse fishing regulations are aimed at achieving the above objectives.

SOURCES:

Abdurahiman, K.P., Nayak, T.H., Zacharia, P.U., & Mohamed, K.S. (2010) Trophic organisation and predator–prey interactions among commercially exploited demersal finfishes in the coastal waters of the southeastern Arabian Sea. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 87(4), 601-610.

Adiga, S.M., Ananthan, P.S., Divya Kumari, H.V., & Mallikarjun, H. (2016a) An Analysis of Long Term Catch Trends in Marine Fishery Resources of Karnataka State, India. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 14(1), 201-213.

Adiga, M.S., Ananthan, P.S., Kumari, H.D., & Ramasubramanian, V. (2016b) Multidimensional analysis of marine fishery resources of Maharashtra, India. Ocean & Coastal Management, 130, 13-20.

Anon (2017a) Staff shortage hits patrolling to check juvenile fishing, The Hindu, 18 May 2017.

32

Anon (2017b) Meet on trawl ban on June 2, The Hindu, 20 May 2017.

Anon, (2016) Fishermen from Maharashtra and Gujarat clash at high seas, The Times of India, 4 February 2016.

Anon, (2010) Report of the Technical Committee to Assess the Impact of Fishing Ban and to Review its Duration, 99 pp.

Aswathy, N., Narayanakumar, R., & Harshan, N.K. (2016) Performance of marine fishing industry in Karnataka: An analysis using total factor productivity. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 63(1), 89-94.

Aswathy, N., Sathiadhas, R., Narayanakumar, R., & Shyam, S.S. (2012) Marketing and utilization of marine by catch: Problems and prospects. Journal of Fisheries Economics and Development, 12(2), 1-8.

Bhairol, H., Dora, K.C., & Talwar, N.A. (2013) Studies on juveniles and size selection of Threadfin bream (Nemipterus japonicus) in bottom trawling off Mangalore., Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences, 42(2), 249-253.

Bhagirathan, U., Meenakumari, B., Panda, S.K., Madhu, V.R., Vaghela, D.T., & Jethva, J.K. (2014) Impact of bottom trawling on the epifauna off Veraval coast, India. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences, 43(2), 297-312.

Chakraborty, S.K. (2002) Growth, mortality and stock assessment of Nemipterus mesoprion (Bleeker) from Mumbai waters. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 49(4), 389-396.

CMFRI (2016) FRAD, CMFRI, 2016. Marine Fish Landings in India 2015, Technical Report, CMFRI, Kochi, 11 pages.

DAHD (2016) Second draft statement on the National Policy on Marine Fisheries-invitation of feedback/comments –regarding, Dept. of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Government of India, 15 June 2016, 12 pages.

DAHD (2017) Fisheries ban order issued dated 10.03.2017, Dept. of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Government of India, 10 March 2017, 2 pages.(http://dahd.nic.in/sites/default/files/Fisheries%20ban%20order%20issued%20dated%2010.03.2017.pdf)

Devaraj, M., & Gulati, D. (1988) Assessment of the stock of threadfin bream (Nemipterus japonicus) in the northwest continental shelf of India. In: The First Indian Fisheries Forum Proceedings (pp. 159-164). Asian Fisheries Society.

Deshmukh, V. (2013) Responsible marine fisheries: reflections from Maharashtra. In: ICAR Funded Short Course on “ICT-Oriented Strategic Extension for Responsible Fisheries Management, 5-25 November, Kochi.

Dineshbabu, A.P. & Radhakrishnan, E.V. (2009) Trawl Fishery of juvenile fishes along Mangalore-Malpe coast of Karnataka and its impact on fish stock. Asian Fisheries Science, 22(2), 491-500.

33

http://dahd.nic.in/sites/default/files/Fisheries%20ban%20order%20issued%20dated%2010.03.2017.pdf)

http://dahd.nic.in/sites/default/files/Fisheries%20ban%20order%20issued%20dated%2010.03.2017.pdf)

Dineshbabu, A.P., Thomas, S., & Radhakrishnan, E.V. (2010) Bycatch from trawlers with special reference to its impact on commercial fishery, off Mangalore. In: CoastalFishery Resources of India - Conservation and Sustainable Utilisation. Central Institute of Fishery Technology, Kochi, 2010: 327-334.

Dineshbabu, A.P., Radhakrishnan, E.V., Thomas, S., Maheswarudu, G., Manojkumar, P. P., Kizhakudan, S.J., ... & Sawant, P.B. (2013) Appraisal of trawl fisheries of India with special reference on the changing trends in bycatch utilization. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India, 55(2), 69-78.

Dineshbabu, A.P. (2013) Trawl fishery of eastern Arabian Sea. In: APFIC Regional Expert Workshop on Tropical Trawl Fishery Management, Thailand, 32 pages.

Dineshbabu, A.P., Thomas, S., Radhakrishnan, E.V., & Dinesh, A.C. (2012) Preliminary experiments on application of participatory GIS in trawl fisheries of Karnataka and its prospects in marine fisheries resource conservation and management. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 59(1), 15-22.

Dineshbabu, A.P., Thomas, S., & Dinesh, A.C. (2015) GIS for Assessing Spatio-temporal Variations in Trawl Bycatch off Mangalore Coast. Fishery Technology, 52, 152-156.

Dineshbabu, A.P., Thomas, S., & Salian, S. (2016) Impact of Trawling in Indian Waters-A Review. Fishery Technology, 53, 263-272.

Gopal, C., & Vivekanandan, E. (1991) Threadfin bream fishery and biology of Nemipterus japonicus off Veraval. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 38(2), 97-102.

Greenpeace (2012) Safeguard or squander? Deciding the future of India’s fisheries, Greenpeace, 76 pages.

Jaleel, K.A., Parameswaran, U.V., Gopal, A., Khader, C., Ganesh, T., Sanjeevan, V.N., ... & Gupta, G.V.M. (2015) Evaluation of changes in macrobenthic standing stock and polychaete community structure along the south eastern Arabian Sea shelf during the monsoon trawl-ban. Continental Shelf Research, 102, 9-18.

James, P.S.B.R. (2014) Deep-sea fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone of India, resources, performance and new approaches to development, CMFRI., Pages 100-123, In: (Book) Marine Biology, The National Academy of Sciences, India.

Joshi, K.K. (2010) Population dynamics of Nemipterus japonicus (Bloch) in the trawling grounds off Cochin. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 57(1), 7-12.

Joshi, K.K. (2005) Biology and population dynamics of Nemipterus mesoprion (Bleeker) off Cochin. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 52(3), 315-322.

Kamei, G., Chakraborty, S.K., Deshmukhe, G., Jaiswar, A.K., Devi, H.M., Kumari, S., & Sreekanth, G.B. (2013) Assessment of economic impact of juvenile fishing of sciaenids along Mumbai Coast, India. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences, 45(2), 617-621.

34

Karnad, D., Gangal, M., & Karanth, K.K. (2014) Perceptions matter: how fishermen's perceptions affect trends of sustainability in Indian fisheries. Oryx, 48(02), 218-227.

Khileri, R.A., Mathew, K.L., Desai, A.Y., Lende, S.R., Baraiya, K.G., & Joshi, A.M. (2017) Studies on some population attributes of Nemipterus japonicas (Bloch 1791) landed at Veraval, Gujarat. Journal of Experimental Zoology, India, 20(1), 599-604.

Kizhakudan, S.J., Thomas, S., Kizhakudan, J.K., & Zala, M.S. (2008) Fishery of threadfin breams along Saurashtra coast (Gujarat), and some aspects of biology of Nemipterus japonicus (Bloch, 1791) and N. mesoprion (Bleeker, 1853). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India, 50(1), 43-51.

Kumar, A.B., & Deepthi, G.R. (2006) Trawling and by-catch: Implications on marine ecosystem. Current Science, 90(8), 922-931.

Kumarran, R.P. (2012) Cetaceans and cetacean research in India. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 12(2), 159-172.

Kurup, B.M., Kurup, P., Premlal, J.V. Thomas, V. Anand (2003) Bottom trawl discards along Kerala coast: a case study J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India, 45 (2003), 99-107.

Lazarus, T.P., Kumar, A.P., & Prema, A. (2016) Exploitation of Marine Fisheries in Kerala-An Analysis. Madras Agricultural Journal, 103.

Mahesh, V., Benakappa, S., Dineshbabu, A.P., Anjanayappa, H.N., Kumar Naik, A.S., Vijaykumar, M.E., ... & Kumar, J. (2014) Finfish constituents of trawl low value by-catch off Mangalore. Journal of Experimental Zoology India, 17(2), 479-485.

Murty, V.S., Nair, K.V., Thomas, P.A., Lazarus, S., Chakraborty, S.K., Raje, S.G., ... & Velayudhan, A.K. (1992) Present status of exploitation of fish and shellfish resources: Threadfin breams. CMFRI Bulletin, 45, 154-168.

Murty, V.S., Rao, T.A., Srinath, M., Vivekanandan, E., Nair, K.V., Chakraborty, S.K., Raje, S.G. & Zacharia, P.U. (1992) Stock assessment of threadfin breams (Nemipterus spp.) of India. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 39(1&2), 9-41.

Murty, V.S., Joshi, K.K. and Nair, R. J. (2003) Threadfin Breams. In: Status of Exploited Marine Fishery Resources of India. CMFRI, Cochin, pp. 120-126.

Manojkumar, P.P. (2007) Fishery of threadfin breams with some aspects on the biology and stock assessment of Nemipterus mesoprion (Bleeker, 1853) off Malabar coast. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 54(2), 149-154.

Manojkumar, P.P. (2004) Some aspects on the biology of Nemipterus japonicus (Bloch) from Veraval in Gujarat. Indian J. Fish. 51(2): 185-191.

Menezes, M.R., Arolkar, U., & Rathod, V. (2002) Genetic relationships among five nemipterid fish species from the Indian coast using allozyme analysis. Journal of fish biology, 60(5), 1326-1330.

35

Mohamed, K.S., & Veena, S. (2016) How long does it take for tropical marine fish stocks to recover after declines? Case studies from the Southwest coast of India. Current Science, 110(4), 584-594.

Mohamed, K.S., P. Puthra, T.V. Sathianandan, M.V. Baiju, K.A. Sairabhanu, K.M. Lethy, P. Sahadevan, Chandrasekharan, M. Lailabeevi and Sivaprasad, P.S. (2013) Report of the committee to evaluate fish wealth and impact of trawl ban along Kerala coast. Department of Fisheries, Government of Kerala. 68p.

Mohamed, K.S., Sathianandan, T.V., Zacharia, P.U., Asokan, P.K., Krishnakumar, P.K., Abdurahiman, K.P., ... & Durgekar, N.R. (2010) Depleted and collapsed marine fish stocks along southwest coast of India–a simple criterion to assess the status. In: Coastal Fishery Resources of India; Conservation and Sustainable Utilisation. Society of Fisheries Technologists, Cochin, pp. 67-76.

Mohamed, K.S., Zacharia, P.U., Muthiah, C., Abdurahiman, K.P., & Nayak, T.H. (2008) Trophic modelling of the Arabian Sea ecosystem off Karnataka and simulation of fishery yields. Bulletin of the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, 51, 140.

Mohanraj, G., Nair, K.V., Asokan, P.K., & Ghosh, S. (2009) Status of marine fisheries in Gujarat with strategies for sustainable and responsible fisheries. Asian Fisheries Science, 22(1), 285-296.

Mohanty, R. (2013) Review on Fishery in Kerala Perspective, National Council for Applied Economic Research, 22 pages.

Mudasir, H., Sawant, M.S., Pawar, R.A., Pawsae, A.S., & Bhat, F.A. (2016) Stock identification of Nemipterus japonicus along West Coast of India using RAPD Markers. SKUAST Journal of Research, 18(2), 130-137.

Najmudeen, T.M., & Sathiadhas, R. (2008) Economic impact of juvenile fishing in a tropical multi-gear multi-species fishery. Fisheries Research, 92(2), 322-332.

Ning, P., Sha, Z., Hebert, P.D., & Russell, B. (2015) The taxonomic status of Japanese threadfin bream Nemipterus japonicus (Bloch, 1791) (Perciformes: Nemipteridae) with a redescription of this species from the south china sea based on morphology and DNA barcodes. Journal of Ocean University of China, 14(1), 178-184.

Pawar, H.B., Shirdhankar, M.M., Barve, S.K., & Patange, S.B. (2011) Discrimination of Nemipterus japonicus (Bloch, 1791) stock from Maharashtra and Goa states of India., Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences, 40(3), 471-475.

Polara, J.P., Dash, S.S., Savaria, Y.D., Dhokia, H.K., & Koya, M. (2014) Evolution in fishing crafts and gears of the Saurashtra coast. Marine Fisheries Information Service; Technical and Extension Series, (220), 8-10.

Pramod, G. (2012) Illegal and unreported fishing: global analysis of incentives and a case study estimating illegal and unreported catches from India, PhD Thesis, University of British Columbia, 343 pages.

36

Pramod (2010) Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Marine Fish Catches in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone, Field Report, Policy and Ecosystem Restoration in Fisheries, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, BC, Vancouver, Canada, 30 pages.

Premjothi, P.V.R., Choudury, B. C., Kaul, R., Subburaman, S., Matwal, M., Joshi, D., ... & Menon, V. (2016) An assessment of the past and present distribution status of the whale shark (Rhincodon typus) along the west coast of India. QScience Proceedings, 43.

Rao, G.S. (2010) Current status and prospects of fishery resources of the Indian continental shelf, 314-326. In: Coastal Fishery Resources of India: Conservation and Sustainable Utilisation (Meenakumari, B., Boopendranath, M.R., Edwin, L., Sankar, T.V., Gopal, N. and Ninan, G., Eds.), p. 1-13, Society of Fisheries Technologists (India), Cochin.

Rajan, P.T. (2014) Conservation Status of Marine Faunal Diversity in India: An Analysis of the Indian Wildlife (Protection Act) and IUCN Threatened Species. Marine Faunal Diversity in India: Taxonomy, Ecology and Conservation, 461.

Rajasenan, D., & Paul, B.P. (2012) Unsustainable exploitation and the importance of fisheries management: An analysis of Kerala marine fishery. Asian-African Journal of Economics and Econometrics, 12(2), 377-393.

Raje, S.G. (1996) Some observations on the biology of Nemipterus mesoprion (Bleeker) from Veraval (Gujarat). Indian Journal of Fisheries, 43(2), 157-162.

Rajool Shanis, C.P., Shyam, S.S., Manjebrayakath, H., Ganga, U., Manjusha, U., & Pillai, N.G.K. (2014) Deep-sea shrimp fishery operations in Kerala coast: Problems and Prospects. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies, 1(6), 237-242.

Salim, S.., Aswathy, N., Vipinkumar, P., and Geetha, R. (2014) Economic externalities of low value fishes in trawl operations in Kerala. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 61(2):103-107.

Sathianandan, T.V., Jayasankar, J., Kuriakose, S., Mini, K.G., George, G., Syamala, K., ... & Seynudeen, M.B. (2014) Status of India's Exploited Marine Fishery Resources in 2013. Marine Fisheries Information Service; Technical and Extension Series, (221), 3-6.

Sathianandan T.V., J.Jayasankar, E.Vivekanandan, R.Narayanakumar and N.G.K.Pillai, (2008) Estimates on potential yield and maximum sustainable fleet size for marine fisheries of Kerala. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India, 50(2), 196-201.

Selvaraj, J.J., Biradar, R.S., & Somavanshi, V.S. (2007) Spatial and temporal patterns of demersal fish distribution in the northwest coast of India: a study using Geographic Information System (GIS). Indian J. Fish, 54(3), 243-249.

Sen, S., Dash, G.R., Mohammed, K.K., Sreenath, K.R., Mojjada, S.K., Fofandi, M.K., ... & Kumari, S. (2014) Stock assessment of Japanese threadfin bream, Nemipterus japonicus (Bloch, 1791) from Veraval water, Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences, 43(4), 519-527.

37

Sreekanth, G.B., Chakraborty, S.K., Jaiswar, A.K., Renjith, R.K., Kumar, R., Sandeep, K.P., ... & Pazhayamadom, D.G. (2015) Can the Nemipterus japonicus stocks along Indian coast be differentiated using morphometric analysis? Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences, 44(4), 480-486.

Sreekanth, G.B., Zacharia, P.U., Sathianandan, T.V., Thomas, S., Manju Lekshmi, N., & Singh, N.P. (2015b) Combining surplus production and spectral models to define fishery management advisory-a case study using the threadfin bream fishery along Kerala coast. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 62(1), 41-45.

Sreekanth, G.B., Chakraborty, S.K., Jaiswar, A.K., Renjith, R.K., Mishal, P., Ail, S., & Vaisakh, G. (2014) Comparison of length-weight progression for Japanese threadfin bream, Nemipterus japonicus (Bloch, 1791) from different regions along Indian coast using selected regression models. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences, 43(8), 1533-1542.

Sutaria, D., Panicker, D., Jog, K., Sule, M., Muralidharan, R., & Bopardikar, I. (2015) Chapter Nine-Humpback Dolphins (Genus Sousa) in India: An Overview of Status and Conservation Issues. Advances in marine biology, 72, 229-256.

Thomas, S., Dineshbabu, A.P., Rajesh, K.M., Rohit, P., Nataraja, G.D., & Mishal, P. (2016) Environmental influence on the secondary productivity and fish abundance in coastal fishing grounds off Mangalore, south-eastern Arabian Sea. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 61(3), 24-32.

Vivekanandan, E., Srinath, M., Pillai, V.N., Immanuel, S., & Kurup, K.N. (2003) Trophic model of the coastal fisheries ecosystem of the southwest coast of India. In Silvestre, G. Garces, L., Stobutzki, I., Ahmed, M., Valmonte-Santos, RA, Luna, C., Lachica-Aliño, L., Munro, P., Christensen V., and D. Pauly (eds.) Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings (Vol. 67, pp. 281-198).

Vivekanandan, E., Srinath, M., & Kuriakose, S. (2005) Fishing the marine food web along the Indian coast. Fisheries research, 72(2), 241-252.

Vivekanandan, E., Jeyabaskaran, R., Yousuf, K.S.S.M., Anoop, B.M., Abhilash, K.S., Rajagopalan, M. (2010) Marine mammal research and conservation in India. CMFRI Pamphlet (13/2010). pp. 1-20.

Vivekanandan, E., Mohamed, K.S and Kuriakose, S., Sathianandan, T.V., Ganga, U., Pillai, S Lakshmi and Nair, R.J. (2009) Status of marine fish stock assessment in India and development of a sustainability index. In: 2nd Workshop on the Assessment of Fishery Stock Status in the South and Southeast Asia, 5-9 October 2009, Bangkok, Thailand.

Vivekanandan, E., and R. Jeyabaskaran (2012) Marine mammal species of India. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, 35 pages.

Xavier, S. (2014) Decline in Marine Fishery Resources of the Trawler Sector in Kerala–An Economic analysis. IOSR Journal of Economics and Finance, 5(3), 40-44.

38

Yousuf, K.S.S.M., Anoop, A.K., Anoop, B., Afsal, V.V., Vivekanandan, E., Kumarran, R.P., ... & Jayasankar, P. (2009) Observations on incidental catch of cetaceans in three landing centres along the Indian coast. Marine Biodiversity Records, 2, e64.

Zacharia, P.U. (1998) Dynamics of the threadfin bream, Nemipterus japonicus exploited off Karnataka. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 45(3), 265-270.

Zacharia, P.U., & Nataraja, G.D. (2003) Fishery and biology of threadfin bream, Nemipterus mesoprion from Mangalore-Malpe. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 50(1), 1-10.

Zacharia, P.U., Krishnakumar, P.K., Durgekar, N.R., Anoop, A.K. and Muthiah, C., (2006) Assessment of bycatch and discards associated with bottom trawlingalong Karnataka coast, India.

The likely scoring level was completed for each PI assessed using the key below.

Definition of scoring ranges for PI outcome estimates

Shading to be used

Instructions for filling ‘Likely Scoring Level’ cell

Information suggests fishery is not likely to meet the SG60 scoring issues.

Fail(<60)

Add either text (pass/pass with condition/fail) or the numerical range (<60/60-79/≥80) appropriate to the estimated outcome to the cell.

Shade the cell of each PI evaluation table with the colour which represents the estimated PI score.

Information suggests fishery will reach SG60 but may not meet all of the scoring issues at SG80. A condition may therefore be needed.

Pass with Condition(60-79)

Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in an unconditional pass for this PI. Fishery may meet one or more scoring issues at SG100 level.

Pass(≥80)

39

Principle Component PI Performance Indicator RBF required?

(Y/N)

Likely scoring level

Rationale/ Key points

1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status Y 70 See Recommendations for each principle indicators

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding Y 70Management 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy Y 50

1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools Y 50

1.2.3 Information and monitoring N 85

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status N 85

Number of PIs less than 60 [2]

2 Primary Species

2.1.1 Outcome N 60

2.1.2 Management N 65

2.1.3 Information N 80

Secondary species

2.2.1 Outcome N 80

2.2.2 Management Y 60


ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome N 70

40


(Y/N)





Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome N 80



Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome N 80



Number of PIs less than 60: [0]

3 Governance & policy

3.1.1 Legal and customary framework N 60

3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities

Y 80

3.1.3 Long term objectives Y 60

3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing Y 70

Fishery specific

3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives Y 70

41


(Y/N)



management system

3.2.2 Decision making processes N 60

3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement Y 60

3.2.4 Management performance evaluation

N 75

Number of PIs less than 60: [0]

Principle 1 (Sustainability of the Exploited Stock)A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.

Principle 2 (Maintenance of Ecosystem Integrity)Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

Principle 3 (Effective Management System)The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

42

fisheryprogress.org · Web view2.3.3 Fishery improvement recommendation: There is a need to conduct...

Documents

Transcript of fisheryprogress.org · Web view2.3.3 Fishery improvement recommendation: There is a need to conduct...